Should responsible drug use be taught in schools?

[davedes]

Hey folks, I'm new to the forums. If there's anything I'm doing wrong, please give me a holler.

My main question is:
Would you be for or against an education program that promotes responsible use of drugs? Why or why not?

This would be similar to comprehensive sex education in that it does not directly promote use, but rather promotes responsible/safe use (if it's even necessary).

As "mind-altering drug" is a rather broad term, the program would mainly target the more common student-used drugs, such as marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, magic mushrooms, acid, ecstasy, etc. It would also make clearer distinctions between the so-called "hard" and "soft" drugs, making sure to clarify the potential risks involved in both fields. Most importantly, it would be accurate and honest about findings.

Personally, I fully support comprehensive drug education and responsible drug use. (On a related note, I also support its decriminalization/legalization.) I feel that there are many who can benefit greatly from the social, recreational, spiritual, educational and medical uses of these drugs. I also feel that when responsible use is stressed and well taught, problems such as addiction, overdose, bad trips, etc can be greatly reduced.


Here's my story, which got me started on the topic in the first place.

I'm an 18 year old Canadian male, soon to be studying arts at university. As a casual smoker of marijuana and hashish, I have no history of serious mental or physical illness. I don't smoke cigarettes or cigars, although I do smoke hookah on occasion. I use alcohol regularly. I've never tried stronger psychedelics, such as LSD or psilocybin, but I plan to try them responsibly in the near future.

A couple years ago I was under the impression that all "drugs" were bad and using them would send you into a life of addiction, insanity, isolation, depression, etc. The very brief drug education that I did receive (grade 9) only seemed to reinforce such a notion, with concepts such as psychosis, lung cancer and rehabilitation being applied to no drug in particular. I came out of the course not truly understanding what a drug was, much less understanding that legal commodities such as alcohol and caffeine could also be considered "drugs." All I knew was that drugs were bad, and not to be used. (Of course, as with many teenagers, I eventually began using these drugs in my senior years.)

In short, I've since reconsidered my outlook on drugs, and I do my own research from now on. Many of my classmates, unfortunately, do not. Many of them seem to take their drug education classes to heart. I rarely hear my classmates compare alcohol to drugs, let alone consider them one in the same. A lot of them seem ignorant to the dangers involved with certain drugs, and many problems that could otherwise be prevented seem to arise from irresponsible use and/or "unpreparedness."

[Anmon]

No, you are promoting to children that drug use is ok.

[JaneDoe321]

I think "no" but my main reason is I think responsible "recreational habits" be they sex, drugs, alcohol, etc, should be taught in the HOME.

I don't even really like the quality of education on things like basic academics, but I am exceptionally leery when the govt (in the form of schools) gets into moral issues like sex ed, "drug ed", etc.

(btw I support decriminalization of drugs as well, or at least an honest and even approach, I mean alcohol and tobacco kill *millions*, so to me they are no less dangerous (and in fact more dangerous) than marijuana, etc... can we say "powerful lobbyist friends"?)

[Chaossaber314]

Ever had your school have a mock-casino day? Should they in turn teach financial restraint in a classroom? Even if they did, do you think it would change anything?

[davedes]

I think "no" but my main reason is I think responsible "recreational habits" be they sex, drugs, alcohol, etc, should be taught in the HOME. I don't even really like the quality of education on things like basic academics, but I am exceptionally leery when the govt (in the form of schools) gets into moral issues like sex ed, "drug ed", etc.

I disagree. Topics such as sex, drug use, religion etc. should be taught in school, as well as at home, to give students fair and balanced information on the topic. (Of course, when the program is not fair and balanced, I would rather them not be taught at all.)

The issue we have now is with parents that subscribe to the same biased policies that they were raised with (whether it be about homosexuality, zero-tolerance to drugs, strict religious beliefs, Intelligent Design, or what have you). I agree that parents should play a role in educating their children, but I also feel that children deserve to be given balanced and honest information from "both sides."

A more comprehensive education program could help give this fair and balanced information. Parents would still be free to push their beliefs on their children, but ultimately it would be the teens who decide their outlook on these moral aspects.

[davedes]

Ever had your school have a mock-casino day? Should they in turn teach financial restraint in a classroom?

If it got to the point that a very large percentage of students and adults were becoming frequent problem gamblers, and suffering greatly from it, even permanently, then I would support some form of education, whether it be at school or at home.

But, compared to drug abuse, I would say problem gambling is a relatively minor issue.

Even if they did, do you think it would change anything?

I'm not too familiar with pathological gambling, but in the case of drug use and abuse I do believe better education would help a lot.

Others have suggested -- and some even implemented -- similar changes to drug education[1][2]. Some note the success of the comprehensive Dutch sex education (in which the issue is openly discussed and responsible use is a priority) as a sign that comprehensive education is more effective than abstinence-only and zero tolerance teachings.[3]

Perhaps I should be asking: what reasons do you have to believe that more comprehensive drug education would not work?

[lindsay7]

I don't think there should be tax payer funded schools at all. There should be a lot less taxes, and everyone uses private schools.

There would be competition between private schools, because they are trying to attract customers. The parents are in control and pick and choose which school they want to send their kids to, depending on quality and what they can afford, and what the school teaches.

For example, if you want your children to learn about recreational drugs in school, you can pick a school that caters to that market of families who want that.

[Tycoon]

I don't know much about this subject, but I do know that the government provides clean and sterile syringes. Obviously this is not to promote drug use, but to prevent the spread of disease. I just thought I'd compare that to this topic.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: davedes I've never tried stronger psychedelics, such as LSD or psilocybin, but I plan to try them responsibly in the near future.

I hate to say it, but you sound just like a kid who thinks he knows everything. Good luck.

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: davedes A more comprehensive education program could help give this fair and balanced information. Parents would still be free to push their beliefs on their children, but ultimately it would be the teens who decide their outlook on these moral aspects.

You're not going to get that in America, and that's my problem with it. If I thought the curriculum would be "fair and balanced" I would have a completely different opinion. However, given the complete idiocy that is, as an example, the Abstinence-only-based sex ed classes, I don't want those morons anywhere *near* my kids' brains when it comes to drugs, etc.

[tommy5x]

Time for an anecdote.

My Science teacher once said that if we must take ecstacy at some point, then to make sure that we had nearby some fluids of equivalent 1 tbsp salt (sodium chloride) and 1tbsp sugar to 1l water, so that, essentially, we didn't die.

I think that the dangers of drugs should most certainly be taught in schools, but that there is no way to teach safe drug use, because there is no such thing, unless we're going to be so pedantic as to say "don't exceed the stated dosage."

[davedes]

Quote by: Tycoon I don't know much about this subject, but I do know that the government provides clean and sterile syringes. Obviously this is not to promote drug use, but to prevent the spread of disease. I just thought I'd compare that to this topic.

Vancouver's got a "Safe Injection Site" that seems to be working well. I think it's the first (and only?) in North America.

The Conservative Party doesn't seem too happy about it.

Quote by: Compugasm I hate to say it, but you sound just like a kid who thinks he knows everything. Good luck.

You got this from me saying I wish to try LSD?

I know very little about life. I would like to know more, which is why I'm on volconvo.

Quote by: JaneDoe321 You're not going to get that in America, and that's my problem with it. If I thought the curriculum would be "fair and balanced" I would have a completely different opinion. However, given the complete idiocy that is, as an example, the Abstinence-only-based sex ed classes, I don't want those morons anywhere *near* my kids' brains when it comes to drugs, etc.

Ha, you make a very fair point.

In my view, davedes has a valid and important point.

Young people are going to experiment with all aspects of life from sex and relationships to substance use, be it tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. The current way of teaching sex education in some schools and drug use in all schools is that the students quickly learn that the school (and by extension the government and most other institutions including the churches) are the last place one would go for information. Information you will not get, propaganda and lies you will.

At a fairly tender age, young people will begin exploring their worlds. If we as parents, educators, spiritual leads, and public officials lie to them about the world they'll be investigating, we insure that their path will be more dangerous. However, if we explain how to tread that path safely, and assure them that home, school, church will always be 'safe harbors' and honest harbors for them, the odds that they will experiment and learn improve, that they will experiment and come to harm will not.

If I'm recalling the research correctly, research shows that abstinence-only programs don't work. The same can be said for many drug abuse programs.

If parents, schools, churches, and public officials are honest with young people--even if they don't like the information they have to disseminate-- for the most part young people will make the right choices, and when they experiment the chances of them coming to harm will be greatly reduced.

Moreover, through honesty, young people's respect is earned. Most of us , particularly young people, try to earn the respect of those we respect in turn, not of those who we know lie to us.

[JaneDoe321]

I completely agree that objective information should be provided on these (and other) topics.

I still firmly believe that in the vast majority of the time, you're not going to get that. You're going to get propaganda which (as you reference) is useless at best. So I prefer to NOT spread already-thinly-spread school funds on yet ANOTHER pseudo-educational program. Perhaps that's a defeatist attitude, but there you have it.

[Maryjane]

My 10 year old recently went through the Dare program at school. It was impressed upon him that marijuana is as harmful as heroin. With that kind of biased information, I'd rather the school not present misconceptions and stay out of it.

I do my own research from now on.

I like that approach.

I had a lot of friends growing up that did, but I was never one to sit around doing hard core drugs. (I tried a few) I never understood pissing my hard earned money away, sitting around in an incoherent state when there were so many other ways to entertain yourself.

Because of the information presented via the school system,
I imagine my youngest would be as shocked as my older two sons (21 & 19) were when they found out last summer I occasionally partake of the weed. To me, its not as harmful as having a cocktail. A film vial of swag lasts me a year. It seemed their worst fear was my method of obtainment. What's funny is we know the same sources.

(for the record, that's NOT why I chose the name Maryjane...it's my name)

[grandpa]

Quote by: Maryjane My 10 year old recently went through the Dare program at school. It was impressed upon him that marijuana is as harmful as heroin.

Sometimes school is as harmful as heroin.

Grandpa h.

[another day]

Quote by: lindsay7 I don't think there should be tax payer funded schools at all. There should be a lot less taxes, and everyone uses private schools. There would be competition between private schools, because they are trying to attract customers. The parents are in control and pick and choose which school they want to send their kids to, depending on quality and what they can afford, and what the school teaches. For example, if you want your children to learn about recreational drugs in school, you can pick a school that caters to that market of families who want that.

I don't think you've visited a place called reality lately...

Kids need to go to the school closest to them, so they can take the bus or walk usually. Not all parents are available to cart their children off fifty miles to some special school that fits their bill...

Moreover, simple economics dictate that the best schools will pop up in the wealthier areas while the poor areas will have crappy schools. The poor kids end up going to the crappy schools, and the rich kids end up going to the good schools and the cycle of poverty and class-gap widens.

This already happens to some extent with publicly funded schools but it would get out of control if they were privatized.

Some things just aren't suited to the capitalist system.

As for the drug thing, no. I think school should leave the "socialization" out of their curriculum.

[grandpa]

Quote by: another day I don't think you've visited a place called reality lately... Kids need to go to the school closest to them, so they can take the bus or walk usually.

Education for profit is a dumb idea. Quite simply, education should be given to those in need. Of course, the current system tends to fail at quality education.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Responsible use of various substances should be taught by the parents or by the pediatricians. If you keep adding more of this other stuff to the school curriculum, there won't be time for teaching the basics. I can see it now: Johnny knows how to have safe sex, how to be politically correct, how to use drugs responsibly but he can't read, write or do more than add 2+2.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: another day I don't think you've visited a place called reality lately... Kids need to go to the school closest to them, so they can take the bus or walk usually. Not all parents are available to cart their children off fifty miles to some special school that fits their bill... Moreover, simple economics dictate that the best schools will pop up in the wealthier areas while the poor areas will have crappy schools. The poor kids end up going to the crappy schools, and the rich kids end up going to the good schools and the cycle of poverty and class-gap widens. This already happens to some extent with publicly funded schools but it would get out of control if they were privatized. Some things just aren't suited to the capitalist system. As for the drug thing, no. I think school should leave the "socialization" out of their curriculum.

Most people live in cities or suburbs, where it’s hardly 50 miles between schools. I grew up in the country and I still had several high schools to choose from that could bus from my house.

There could still be welfare and public schools for the very poor. Or welfare that puts them in less expensive private schools, perhaps run by charities or churches. They could do a better job than the government.

Anyways, it wouldn’t be any worse for the poor than it is now! There’s no sense holding everyone else back from getting a better education just to try to keep things ‘fair’. The majority getting a better education benefits everyone in the end - what do stupid people ever accomplish??

If everyone is better educated maybe we could start ending poverty, and not voting in people like Bush.